An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

**MmeVertigina** · February 7th, 2014, 11:46 PM

I do get the whole parental alienation thing, I have seen it happen first hand. There were no allegations of abuse involved, just a ton of brain washing and positive incentives for the child to avoid the alienated parent (given by the other parent), it's a very sad thing when it genuinely happens because someone is so bitter. I wonder if Dylan will respond to his response.

**South Lake** · February 7th, 2014, 11:58 PM

WA builds a good case in his defense. He sounds believable. Until I read the next piece on the "10 Facts." I still believe Dylan.

**Bellatheball** · February 8th, 2014, 12:06 AM

That is one fucked up family. My gosh. While it makes for interesting gossip, does this all need to be aired in public?

The bit about the attic was somewhat believable to me. The rest? No. It sounds like someone who is deflecting in a lot of different directions. Maybe MF planted some memories, maybe she didn't. Like others have said, one of the biggest horrors is that this poor girl was raised by two complete parenting failures.

***Kat*** · February 8th, 2014, 12:19 AM

There's nothing WA could have written that would change the minds of those who already believe he's guilty.

**stella blue** · February 8th, 2014, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by *Kat*

There's nothing WA could have written that would change the minds of those who already believe he's guilty.

And there's nothing that Dylan could write that would change the minds of those who believe he's not.

**mistify** · February 8th, 2014, 01:12 AM

How can SoonYi not be one fucked up bitch?

***Kat*** · February 8th, 2014, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by stella blue

And there's nothing that Dylan could write that would change the minds of those who believe he's not.

Sigh. I'll let WCG's post speak for me here.

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

And I haven't dismissed either side out of hand, and resent the implication that those of us in this thread that want to listen to both sides, and have clearly stated that we personally don't know, and don't want to make a judgement based on what we have seen (which are only articles written by friends of those involved - Orth and Weide, and small snippets of testimony published.) are called apologists.

**mjw** · February 8th, 2014, 07:24 AM

Dylan Farrow has responded to a letter Woody Allen published in The New York Times Friday.

Dylan's Reponse:

Once again, Woody Allen is attacking me and my family in an effort to discredit and silence me - but nothing he says or writes can change the truth. For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life.
His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here:10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation | Vanity Fair.

With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".

Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

Found that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.

source

Read more at ONTD: Oh No They Didn't! - Dylan Farrow responds to Woody Allen's NYT Op-ed

**witchcurlgirl** · February 8th, 2014, 07:37 AM

Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

I'm interested in how often the CT attorney did this- are there many people that were not prosecuted for sexual abuse even though there was evidence and cause, so as not to further traumatize the victims? Did the same set of standards apply to other crimes?

**ADel** · February 8th, 2014, 08:01 AM

All parties in this sorry tale are unhinged. They've all said their piece now and it's time for the Farrow camp to either take the next step and pursue it in court or shut the hell up.

Actually, the more this goes on and the more Dylan says, the less credible I find her. I think the Yale clinic got it right.

**CornFlakegrl** · February 8th, 2014, 08:29 AM

I wonder if WA's piece was/is the right move but I understand his wanting to defend himself (if he's innocent). Dylan's characterization of his letter as a "vicious attack" seems Mia-esque in it's shrillness, which gives pause. If he's guilty I can see her continuing to call him out as a liar, but he seems to go out of his way to not attack Dylan in that piece.

**witchcurlgirl** · February 8th, 2014, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by QueenBee

Regarding Woody's statement above about his ex-girlfriend Stacey Nelkin:

Nelkin also said that someone from Mia Farrow's camp had tried to convince Nelkin to testify against Allen during the custody battle. This person wanted her to "admit that I was 15 when we dated, and I said no, because I was not 15," Nelkin said. "I was 17, 18 and 19, and to me there's a big distinction between that, and I think they were looking for the fact that, you know, 15 is jail bait. Seventeen is a very different story. And I would not go along with that."

Barbara Walters, Stacey Nelkin defend Woody Allen on TV - latimes.com

A 17 year-old with a 52 year-old? And IMO there is not a huge difference between 15 and 17 years of age.

He was actually 42. And you may not see a difference between 15 and 17, but the law does.

Finding things like that creepy is fairly normal. What isnt normal is how we selectively view some relationships like that as creepy, and not others. Example- Bogart and Bacall were 45 and 20 when they began seeing each other. You never hear anyone skeeving out over it.

**Flygirl** · February 8th, 2014, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by sluce

. Her mother saw him waterboard her and did nothing because "she only saw he had her head in the kitchen sink he said he was washing her hair." When he was arrested the mother admits she got him home and discussed ways to try and lie and keep their stories the same. She finally turned on him and backed her daughter. IMO it's too little too late and she should not have custody of this child. It's Dr Melvin Morse if anyone wants to look at the case.

What a piece of shit. There are some people who don't deserve the children they're entrusted with. There is noone on this earth I would side with against my child. My blood is boiling.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

At the bond hearing the judge was not going to give him bond, but his lawyer a member of the church…also, his church was funding his lawyer…the lawyer talked the judge into bond.
.

what the fuck?! I hope they felt like fools when the other victim came forward and didn't get a dime of their money back.

**Butterfly** · February 8th, 2014, 09:09 AM

I do to, Flygirl. The lawyer was trying to tell us what a great guy he is and didn't deserve to go to prison for something so "minor". After the second victim came forward he never said a word to us or even looked our way again. He probably wanted to crawl into a hole. I wish I could see the reaction of the congregation when they learned there tithe was truly funding a pedo and not just a poor accused man they all went to church with.

**sluce** · February 8th, 2014, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by *Kat*

Sigh. I'll let WCG's post speak for me here.

Yet you felt the need to post in a slanted one sided manner?

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

I'm interested in how often the CT attorney did this- are there many people that were not prosecuted for sexual abuse even though there was evidence and cause, so as not to further traumatize the victims? Did the same set of standards apply to other crimes?

It was SO different 20 years ago. Thank God so much has changed. However, even then there was a standard protocol of how an alleged victim was to be treated in the attempt to uncover the truth and the Yale team failed to follow the standards. Leventhal also took a huge risk of signing the report when never treating the patient or having had an appropriately trained team involved in the questioning. Too bad we can't have it all evaluated now.

Originally Posted by ADel

All parties in this sorry tale are unhinged. They've all said their piece now and it's time for the Farrow camp to either take the next step and pursue it in court or shut the hell up.

Actually, the more this goes on and the more Dylan says, the less credible I find her. I think the Yale clinic got it right.

Yes because victims should stop talking when the one they accuse refutes their accusation.

ETA - he also lied when he said he and Soon-yi were placed under greater scrutiny to adopt. I know firsthand they sailed through the home study process once they hired a certain person to write the report after others had refused.